Meta

The continued need to improve therapeutic recombinant protein productivity has led

The continued need to improve therapeutic recombinant protein productivity has led to ongoing assessment of appropriate strategies in the biopharmaceutical industry to establish robust processes with optimized critical variables, that is, viable cell density (VCD) and specific productivity (product per cell, qP). selective inhibitor can mediate a complete and sustained G0/G1 arrest without impacting G2/M phase. Cell proliferation is usually consistently HPGDS inhibitor 1 and rapidly controlled in all recombinant cell lines at one concentration of this inhibitor throughout the production processes with specific productivities increased up to 110?pg/cell/day. Additionally, the product quality attributes KITH_HHV1 antibody of the mAb, with regard to high molecular weight (HMW) and glycan profile, are not negatively impacted. In fact, high mannose is usually decreased after treatment, which is usually in contrast to other established growth control methods such as reducing culture heat. Microarray analysis showed major differences in manifestation of regulatory genes of the glycosylation and cell cycle signaling pathways between these different growth control methods. Overall, our observations showed that cell cycle arrest by directly targeting CDK4/6 using selective inhibitor compound can be utilized consistently and rapidly to optimize process parameters, such as cell growth, qP, and glycosylation profile in recombinant antibody production cultures. Keywords: specific productivity, recombinant antibody production, glycosylation, product quality Introduction HPGDS inhibitor 1 Recombinant protein productivity is usually proportional to viable cell density (VCD) and specific productivity (product per cell, qP). Even though achieving and maintaining high VCD is usually important for productivity, a high VCD beyond an optimal number will decrease yield due to the reduction of the harvestable production volume and possible challenges to the pick operation. In addition, a very high VCD can have excessive nutrient and gas exchange demands that can be challenging to meet. For these reasons, it is usually important to control cell growth after an optimum VCD has been obtained during production. With VCD being controlled, increasing qP then becomes essential HPGDS inhibitor 1 for protein productivity. Cell cycle inhibition-related approaches have been widely used and tested previously to increase qP in recombinant HPGDS inhibitor 1 cell cultures, including nutrient limitation, decreasing cultivation heat, chemical additives such as butyrate, cell executive by overexpression of endogenous cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors (CKIs), or anti-apoptotic proteins such as Bcl-2 family members (Fomina-Yadlin et al., 2014; Kantardjieff et al., 2010; Kumar et al., 2007; O’Reilly et al., 1996; Sampathkumar HPGDS inhibitor 1 et al., 2006; Simpson et al., 1999; Tey and Al-Rubeai, 2005; Yee et al., 2008). Recently the potential use of miRNAs to control cell cycle has also been studied in CHO production culture (Barron et al., 2011; Bueno et al., 2008; Doolan et al., 2013; Hackl et al., 2012; Jadhav et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2011; Sanchez et al., 2013; Strotbek et al., 2013). While these approaches have been shown to be effective in improving qP, their effects under different circumstances, such as different manifestation vector design, host cell type, production medium, protein sequence, and process set points, can be variable. A common feature of all these approaches is usually that the cell cycle checkpoint regulators, cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs) are not the unique target. Almost all these approaches have multiple cellular targets other than cell cycle, leading to varying degrees of pleiotropic effects. It is usually therefore not surprising to find inconsistencies from clone to clone and between experiments using these methods during production processes, presumably due to the complex signaling networks focused by different activation events that each of these approaches stimulate. Hence, the cross-talk among the different signaling pathways, such as cell cycle, apoptosis, and metabolism, will generate different cellular contexts, which then influence cell fate. More specifically, nutrient limitation is usually one of commonly used approach in growth control, which can suppress cell cycle progression through the amino acid deprivation response (AAR)-associated pathways, including EF1-ATF4 and EF1-PERK pathways, which decrease intracellular levels of cyclins (Dey et al., 2010; Fomina-Yadlin et al., 2014; Hamanaka et al., 2005; Harding et al., 1999, 2000; Sonenberg et al., 2000; Shang et al., 2007; Wek et al., 2006). However, these pathways can lower a quantity of additional protein also, including house cleaning genetics that maintain important metabolic and mobile function (Harding et al., 2003; Shang et al., 2007). This path also displays cross-talk to additional tension paths and can be capable to induce apoptosis (Ameri and Harris, 2008; Wek and Baird, 2012; Dey et al., 2010; Fomina-Yadlin et al., 2014; Harding et al., 2003; Kilberg.